On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:31:58PM +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I think one thing we should work on, is being absolutely religious about
> > requiring, say, 2 reviews for every nontrivial contribution. We
> > currently seem to have a significantly increased submission rate, and at
> > the same time the number of reviews per patch has gone down
> > substantially. I think the "honor" system has failed in that regard.
>
> Good point, totally agree.
>
> So the project should try to think of new ideas on how to incentivise reviewing?
>
> I have three ideas so far:
>
> 1. The way I see it, the honor system is based on being mentioned
> in the commit message and the release notes.
>
> Authors are always mentioned in the release notes,
> but I see reviewers are mostly only mentioned in the commit messages.
>
> Maybe more skilled developers would think it's cool to do reviewing
> if they were "paid" by also being mentioned in the release notes?
>
> At least some skilled people would probably be motivated by it,
> in addition to the good feeling of doing something just because it's
> fun or important.
FYI, the fact that feature authors appear in the release notes is an
artifact of how we track who wrote which stuff, and is not designed for
rewarding, though it has that effect. If we were to expand that to
cover reviewers, we would then be overburdinging that system and we
would probably end up removing all names from the release notes.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription +
